After reading the report just writen by Dr. Giuseppe Levi at the Physics Department of Bologna University, made, as "third party", the experiment, performed in an industrial laboratory near the city of Bologna, Italy on Jan. 14, 2011, I would like to note the following in order to improve, deeply, the understanding of what really happened and obtain a more accurate measurement of energy balance.

The key point of the measurement is the assumption that ALL the water heated by the reactor went outside the cooling coil as vapor, not water.

It arises because:

a) the specific heat capacity at constant pressure (Cp) of water is (in mean) about 4.2 J/(g*K);
b) the enthalpy of vaporization of water is, at 100°C, as large as 2260 J/g.

The term a) gives a total energy of 4.2* (101-13)= 369.6 J in the experimental conditions reported.

In other words, for each g of water, the amout of energy "absorbed" for the vapor generation is about 86% of the total (2260/(2260+369.6).

Moreover, because the dryness of vapor (and the energy-mass balance) is a very strong function of "water contamination", as first commented by Kenneth Grabowski (at Naval Research Laboratories, Washington DC-USA) and detailed by (among others) Horace Heffner (email: hheffner@xx.net) at the CMNS discussion list, I think that the information given by Levi in his report isn't enough to give complete assurance about the very large excess energy claimed, on the order of a factor 20.

Moreover, the vapor "detector," model HP474AC, can't guarantee, at 100% certainty, the "dryness" of the vapor.

Because of such fundamental considerations, and considering the importance of this work, and its potential for a practical application, I reccomend that Andrea Rossi perform the next experiments and avoid all the problems and doubts related to vapor generation.

I think it can be easly performed by just increasing the flux of cooling water by a factor of about 10 so that the maximum temperature will be of the order of 80-90°C.

I don't know if it will be possible before the forthcoming ICCF16 conference, due to short notice.

Anyway, if other details that were not written in the Levi report become available, it will be possible to go deeper in a scientific discussion of the experiment.

Obviously, once the scientific aspects are clarified, Rossi can run the apparatus in the vapor generation phase for practical application and use his Energy Catalyzer at temperatures as high as possible!

The mail that you kindly wrote to me, about the complex problem of water-steam evaluation, is that I would like to get as an "cold observer" of the important experiment you made under the worst possible situation/interpretation of results, the gain was surely larger than 1.

In addition, you told that in previous experiments you have done similar tests but without complexity of "vapour purity": [and that] such tests gave positive answer about the net energy gain. It is correct?

Moreover, always from my point of view as a researcher, I would like to know (as much as possible, for example, the behaviour of the experimets performed. Can you give to us more details (that is, reports) about previous experiments, even as a short table of the key results?

Obviously, you can omit all the specific information that could damage the patent rights.

Please remember, I have to make (together with Michael Melich) a report on your experiment at the incoming ICCF16 (Chennai, India). Documents, that are easily interpretated, are welcome.

DEAR SIRS,
WE ALWAYS WORKED WITH WATER, NOT STEAM, IN THE FORMER TESTS WE MADE ALL THE WORLD AROUND. WE ALSO USED AIR. ALL THE DATA COINCIDE. I BELIEVE IN THE WORK OF DR GALANTINI, WHO SAID THAT THE STEAM WAS DRY, BECAUSE I AM PRETTY CONVINCED THAT HE IS ABLE TO ESTABILISH IF A FLOW OF STEAM IS DRY OR NOT. IN ANY CASE: THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY AT THE OUTPUT SHOULD BE OBTAINED ALSO IF AT 102 CELSIUS DEGREES WE HAD JUST WATER ( WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE), NOT STEAM. I MEAN: IN THE WORST IMAGINABLE SCENARIO WE GOT OUR STRONG SURPLUS RESPECT ELECTROCHEMICAL PRODUCTION. THIS IS JUST A CALCULATION BY ABSURD, BECAUSE THE STEAM WAS DRY, AS CALCULATED BY GALANTINI. AND: WE WILL SEE IT BETTER IN THE PLANTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN INDUSTRIAL OPERATION.